The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Laura Loomer, the far-right provocateur and one-time Republican candidate for Congress who sued social media companies over their decision to ban her from their platforms.
Laura Loomer, who had previously sued both X and Meta Platforms, the owner of Facebook, filed a new suit that accused the companies of breaking civil racketeering laws when they deplatformed her while she was running for Congress in Florida in 2020 and 2022.
Among other things, her appeal raised legal questions about Section 230, a law that shields social media sites from lawsuits over content moderation. That immunity has been condemned by both the right and the left, although the high court largely sidestepped it.
In written arguments filed with the Supreme Court, Laura Loomer said that the removals from the platforms “gagged” her ability to use them to “communicate with voters, raise funds, and compete in federal elections.”
“Social media is crucial to campaigns, particularly in light of COVID-19 limitations that have curtailed traditional campaign methods such as door-to-door canvassing and public events,” her lawyers told the Supreme Court in their appeal. Laura Loomer had no social media for any of her campaigns because of social media bans.”
But lower courts repeatedly ruled against Laura Loomer. Both X and Meta chose not to respond to her petition at the Supreme Court — an indication of the companies’ conviction that taking it seriously is unwarranted — and the court declined to hear her petition despite her failure fully to brief it.
With more than 1.7 million followers on X, where she was reinstated, Laura Loomer has assumed the self-appointed role of “loyalty enforcer,” investigating the backgrounds of various administration officials to ferret out evidence that they have ever entertained doubts about the president.
The Supreme Court had a chance to significantly cripple Section 230 in two cases in 2023, but instead issued more modest decisions that upheld the ability of the companies to shield themselves from lawsuits over terrorist-related content.
“Social media is crucial to campaigns, particularly in light of COVID-19 limitations that have curtailed traditional campaign methods such as door-to-door canvassing and public events,” her lawyers told the Supreme Court in their appeal. Loomer had no social media for any of her campaigns because of social media bans.”
But lower courts repeatedly ruled against Laura Loomer. Both X and Meta chose not to respond to her petition at the Supreme Court — an indication of the companies’ conviction that taking it seriously is unwarranted — and the court declined to hear her petition despite her failure fully to brief it.
With more than 1.7 million followers on X, where she was reinstated, Laura Loomer has assumed the self-appointed role of “loyalty enforcer,” investigating the backgrounds of various administration officials to ferret out evidence that they have ever entertained doubts about the president.
The Supreme Court had a chance to cripple Section 230 in two cases in 2023, but instead issued more modest decisions that upheld the ability of the companies to shield themselves from lawsuits over terrorist-related content.
